The Financial Times called Race Against the Machine “compelling for its claim to explain two crumbling economic laws: the first that growth will create jobs; the second that rising wages will follow rising productivity. The authors think this stems from the erosion of a third pattern – that technology creates at least as many jobs as it destroys. Many intuitively doubt this idea, as the looms long ago smashed by Ned Ludd attest.”

But Brynjolfsson argues Moore’s Law means technology is advancing faster than humans can adjust, at least for now.

Subscribe to the Money and Politics Podcasthere. And here’s your direct link.

I’m sorry, I’m unimpressed by references to innovations that aren’t available in the market either because they aren’t useful (a computer that can beat people at jeopardy) or because they aren’t ready or don’t add real value to our productivity (self driving cars).

I’m tired of us bragging about innovations that are happening in labs. If it isn’t in the market, I don’t want to hear about it.

Barkha Herman: The self driving car is on the roads, and much of the delay is legislative. See here.

The importance of the computer that beats everyone in jeopardy is the machine learning ability. This is the same stuff that prevents spam in you inbox; so not entirely theoretic / in the lab…

It’s actual value cannot be determined until it is in the market place. Once upon a time we bragged about things we had accomplished. Thing who’s value could be ascertained in certain terms. Now, every news story about technology is about some break through that we maybe possibly could see at some point down the road.

I think we overstate our genius at every turn. I’d like to see us using much more tangible measurements of our progress than looking at the cool stuff people in universities are working on, many of which will never see the light of day in the free market.

Maybe you are not seeing the value because you are not looking in the new marketplaces….for example, Kickstarter, or outlets for the makers movement (e.g., Arduino). Productivity gains can arise from the accretion of small innovations as well as those of larger disruptive technologies such as driver-less cars. Think of all the development going on in the mobile device world.

I had the same experience at the DMV the last time I renewed my driver’s license. Very easy. But is my better experience an objective measure of productivity? I doubt the overall cost of operating the DMV is any less than it was way back when going to the DMV was purgatorious, so how does my more pleasurable experience become a calculable measure of productivity? I probably just don’t understand the economic context.

The DMV might be considered more productive if those same people who’ve been working the windows for decades aren’t still there once automatic renewals, online renewals, etc., become part of the picture. The fact is, even increased efficiencies in the public sector does not translate to reduced operational costs. See any public-sector budget (more or less) for the last 40 years.

Brynjolfsson didn’t discuss income mobility, just percentages within the demographics. The mix of incomes will always be changing. But if you want to see how people are doing, measure how many of them are moving from one earnings bracket to another.

Why is it assumed that we want a re-distributive role for government? Why is it assumed that putting assets in the hands of the 50% or so that pay no net income taxes will suddenly grant them the wisdom to invest their capital wisely, as one large homogenous group? If anything, the data says otherwise. It’s more than just income transfer, it’s culture, families, and responsibility – something gov’t is better at teaching people they don’t need rather than the other way around.